In a major legal victory for former President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court has allowed his administration to enforce a controversial policy restricting gender markers on U.S. passports. The decision, issued on Thursday, effectively requires passports to list a person’s biological sex at birth, eliminating the option for the ‘X’ gender designation that had been available under prior rules.
The ruling, which passed with a 6-3 split, marks the culmination of a year-long legal struggle over the federal government’s treatment of non-binary and transgender individuals. It reinforces Trump’s broader agenda on gender and identity, which he framed as an effort to restore “biological truth” in federal documentation.
Background of the Policy
The ‘X’ marker on passports was first implemented in October 2021, under the Biden administration, allowing travelers to choose a gender designation outside of the traditional male/female binary. This policy was intended to reflect the identity of non-binary individuals and those who did not wish to disclose their sex as male or female.
However, upon entering office for his second term in January 2025, Trump issued a series of executive orders aimed at reshaping federal policy on gender. One of the most consequential was titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Among other measures, the order specifically targeted the passport policy, declaring that federal documents must reflect biological sex at birth and that non-binary or transgender identities would not be recognized in the law for official purposes.
According to the text of the executive order, the administration argued that government documents should attest to historical facts, including sex assigned at birth, rather than subjective identities. The policy quickly became a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over transgender and non-binary rights, drawing criticism from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, civil liberties organizations, and legal experts who argued that it discriminated against a vulnerable population.
Initial Legal Challenge
The policy faced immediate legal opposition. In April 2025, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of Trump’s passport ban. U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick ruled that the policy “classifies passport applicants on the basis of sex” and must therefore undergo intermediate judicial scrutiny — a standard that requires the government to show its actions are “substantially related to an important governmental interest.”
Judge Kobick found that the Trump administration had not demonstrated a sufficient governmental interest to justify the restriction, effectively halting enforcement of the executive order while litigation proceeded. At the time, civil rights groups hailed the ruling as a victory, emphasizing the potential harm the policy could cause for non-binary and transgender citizens navigating travel and legal documentation.
Supreme Court Review
The Trump administration appealed, and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the High Court granted a stay on the lower court ruling, allowing the policy to go into effect while the legal proceedings continue.
In its ruling, the Court wrote that displaying a passport holder’s biological sex at birth does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, comparing it to other factual notations on passports, such as country of birth. The Court reasoned that in both cases, the government is merely recording a historical fact, without treating individuals differently in a legally impermissible way.
The justices further rejected arguments that the policy was motivated solely by animus toward transgender and non-binary individuals. “On this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex ‘lack[s] any purpose other than a bare… desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’” the Court wrote.
Implications for Travelers
The Supreme Court decision immediately impacts passport applications across the United States. Non-binary and transgender individuals seeking passports will now be required to select male or female, reflecting their sex at birth. Officials have confirmed that the ‘X’ designation will no longer be issued under federal policy.
Advocates have warned that the ruling may pose practical and psychological challenges for affected individuals, particularly those who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth. Critics argue that forcing citizens to misrepresent themselves on official documents could complicate travel, identification verification, and access to services both domestically and abroad.
“The ruling erases the identity of countless Americans,” said Alex Martinez, legal director of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Equality Forward. “It signals a federal endorsement of a binary system that doesn’t reflect the lived realities of our citizens, and it could create unnecessary barriers for people simply trying to travel or obtain identification.”
Political Context
The ruling is also significant from a political perspective, representing a clear win for Trump’s conservative base. Throughout his second term, Trump has pursued policies framed as protecting traditional gender definitions and limiting federal recognition of non-binary and transgender identities. This Supreme Court decision validates that approach and could embolden similar policies in other federal agencies.
Supporters argue that the ruling preserves government consistency and accuracy. “Federal documents must reflect objective, verifiable facts,” said John Harrington, a conservative legal analyst. “The Court recognized that sex assigned at birth is a historical fact, unlike subjective identity claims, and that distinction is crucial for uniform government recordkeeping.”
However, critics warn that the ruling deepens the divide on gender issues and may provoke further legal challenges at the state level. Several states, including California and New York, have enacted laws allowing gender markers other than male or female on state-issued IDs, passports, and driver’s licenses. Legal experts predict potential clashes between federal and state policies, which could result in additional lawsuits and confusion for travelers.
The Wider Debate on Gender Identity
The Supreme Court decision arrives amid a broader cultural and legal debate over gender identity in the United States. Questions of recognition, privacy, and discrimination have increasingly reached the courts, particularly in contexts ranging from education and healthcare to travel and employment.
Trump’s policy and the Court’s ruling underscore how contentious and polarized the issue has become. Conservatives generally argue that recognizing biological sex as the primary determinant in official documents preserves clarity and fairness, while LGBTQ+ advocates stress the importance of allowing citizens to assert their identities in government records.
“This is not just about a letter on a passport,” said Martinez. “It’s about recognition, dignity, and the ability to live openly without fear of erasure by the government.”
Next Steps
While the Supreme Court’s stay allows the Trump policy to take effect immediately, legal challenges are expected to continue. Advocacy groups are likely to return to federal courts to argue that the policy violates constitutional protections and federal anti-discrimination laws.
For now, however, the ruling marks a definitive victory for Trump and his administration, demonstrating the power of the executive branch to influence federal documentation and civil rights policy. It also signals the Court’s willingness to defer to government assertions of factual recordkeeping in cases of this nature, even amid contentious political and social debate.
As the country grapples with the implications, travelers and legal observers alike will be watching closely to see how states, federal agencies, and the courts navigate this new landscape — one in which the definition of identity on official government documents is now a matter of constitutional law.